Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Hit on a Canuck which angered you the most?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
171 replies to this topic

#151 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,169 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:28 PM

Meanwhile,a period later,the Bruins cheap tactics to win a cup continued.

"Kevin didn't get hit by Peverley, he got a cheap shot in the back of the knee, so that's totally different," Vigneault said. "He went down because of something that obviously you don't want to see in the game."




There have been several slashes in the heated Stanley Cup Finals so far, but none worse in my opinion than this one by Rich Peverley in Game 2.
He waited for Bieksa to turn his back, and for the officials to head up ice, and then he delivered a two-handed slash to the back of the knee.
Bieksa was on the ice being attended to by trainers for a good four or five minutes before he could limp to the bench.
Luckily for Peverley, he wasn't suspended, although he should have been.
In my opinion, this one was worse than any of the hits I showed earlier that went bad (Lucic, Rome and Torres) and resulted in injury, because at least they were intended as hockey plays.
Peverley was just being gutless and attacking Vancouver's best defender behind the play when his back was turned.

http://bleacherrepor...p-finals/page/7

#152 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,403 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:50 PM

Rome on Horty was perfect, clean in my books. The Getzlaf on Hammer hit, well, Hamhuis shouldn't have turned his back, he was expecting a hit and hoping for a penalty. Got more of a bump than he was prepared to take, 50/50 blame on both of them.

#153 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,169 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:35 PM

I saw Dan playing the puck and then protecting himself with the time he had left.

Had he been a dirty player without a conscious he could have just put up his butt end of his stick or elbow to ward off Getzlaf and further protect himself.

He also could have ducked-sending Getzlaf precariously and dangerously flying.His instincts were to not hit Getzlaf.

Getzlaf then did what he did with his 6'4" , 225 pound frame.

Edited by nuck nit, 13 September 2012 - 08:40 PM.


#154 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,372 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 05:22 AM

I saw Dan playing the puck and then protecting himself with the time he had left.

Had he been a dirty player without a conscious he could have just put up his butt end of his stick or elbow to ward off Getzlaf and further protect himself.

He also could have ducked-sending Getzlaf precariously and dangerously flying.His instincts were to not hit Getzlaf.

Getzlaf then did what he did with his 6'4" , 225 pound frame.


I saw Dan pass the puck and turn his back on an immanent hit. Now, if your coach told you turning your back to a hit is protecting yourself, he's an idiot. Turning your back on a hit is not protecting yourself. It's setting yourself up for an injury.

Hockey is a contact sport without height or weight restrictions. Therefore Getzlafs height and weight are completely irrelevant.
Posted Image

#155 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,372 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 05:59 AM

Why is it a blindside? Because Horton is admiring his pass like an idiot? Any hit by that definition is a blind side then. Romer hits Horton dead on in the chest, you can't make it any more direct than that. And since when is interference a suspension? Because Horton was injured? Then so should have been Chara for taking out you know who. The hypocrisy here is disgusting. The Stevens on Kariya hit is very similar to Rome eliminating Horton and nobody had a problem with that. Funny how it changes when it's the Canucks and journeyman Aaron Rome doing it.


Romes hit was late. He didn't even move towards Horton until AFTER the pass was made. It was a cheap shot with intent to injure and deserved a suspension. I'd say it falls into the blindside hit category because he came from the blindside well after the pass was made. Horton had no idea a hit was coming nor should have been expecting one at that point. I also thought the Stevens hit on Kariya was a cheap shot. But the rules were different at that time.

I've always disagreed on the Chara hit. It's what should have been a routine rub-out along the boards. Unfortunately it happened at the worst possible spot on the ice. Players have been run into those stanchions every season for years and it took a serious injury for them to finally do something about that danger. I've never seen a player suspended for hitting in that area and thus there shouldn't have been one in this instance. The injury was the result of a flawed arena design that should have been fixed decades ago.

Btw, virtually any penalty type is suspendible. It's dictated by severity and circumstances.
Posted Image

#156 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,372 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 06:01 AM

Baggins,the longer you argue how clean it is to take out a human being with a head shot,the worse you look as a human being,never mind a fan.

Dan had already released the puck.Getzlaf leaves the ice and Dan's head smashes into the plexiglass.

Dan suffered a brain injury here and it was thought it could end his career and this hit can contribute to an early end to his career-and life.

Having 'lip service' respect for a player is one thing.Showing respect for a player's life is another.

Getzlaf showed no respect and neither have you.Meanwhile a man went down with a brain injury.

You go on and on about how right you think your point of view is as you admonish others but get and show some respect for a player's life and that of his family,man.


Blah blah blah just more of your bs. What about Hortons life and his family?

Saying Romes hit is clean while Getzlafs is dirty shows just how full of it you are. You are looking with the clouded eyes of a Canuck fan with zero objectivity. "My player hurt = bad play, their player hurt = good play". Zero objectivity.

Edited by Baggins, 14 September 2012 - 06:08 AM.

Posted Image

#157 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,959 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 14 September 2012 - 06:50 AM

Time to let it go now as it's getting counter productive and we're simply going around in circles...

Posted Image


#158 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,621 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:09 PM

Romes hit was late. He didn't even move towards Horton until AFTER the pass was made. It was a cheap shot with intent to injure and deserved a suspension. I'd say it falls into the blindside hit category because he came from the blindside well after the pass was made. Horton had no idea a hit was coming nor should have been expecting one at that point. I also thought the Stevens hit on Kariya was a cheap shot. But the rules were different at that time.

I've always disagreed on the Chara hit. It's what should have been a routine rub-out along the boards. Unfortunately it happened at the worst possible spot on the ice. Players have been run into those stanchions every season for years and it took a serious injury for them to finally do something about that danger. I've never seen a player suspended for hitting in that area and thus there shouldn't have been one in this instance. The injury was the result of a flawed arena design that should have been fixed decades ago.

Btw, virtually any penalty type is suspendible. It's dictated by severity and circumstances.


I know Romer committed to the hit after Horton had passed the puck, but why do you dub it intent to injure when it was only interference? Using that logic, all hits labeled as interference should be dubbed intent to injure to as well. I highly doubt Rome's thought process in a split second was to end Horton's playoff run. I also don't understand why you call it a blind side. Because Horton was looking away? Romer nailed him dead on. Horton was caught admiring his pass. Sure, he probably shouldn't have been expecting to get laid out there but had he kept his head forward he may have been able to dodge Romer or at least brace for contact. Cooke ending Savards career was a blindside hit, not this.

Chara, Pacioretty and the decision by the league was pathetic. I don't care anymore, it's long over now, but for arguments sake, the league's ruling was a complete joke. Complete failure to enforce their own rules. I get what you're saying with rubbing out a player along the boards, it happens all the time, but look where Pacioretty dumps the puck and where Chara decides to 'rub him out'. The puck is dumped at the blue line, Chara plays the body at the red line. If that isn't interference, then the rule book needs to be rewritten. Na, forget it, it's bias from the league for whatever reason, that's all it is. That or you have morons in office that don't even know what they're doing. Either way it's incredibly unprofessional, especially for the best league in the world.

You know, it's the same scenario for Raymond. The puck wasn't even playable at that point and Boychuk proceeds to drive Raymond into the boards. Accidentally on purpose. Boychuk probably didn't mean to hurt him, but he certainly meant to drive him into the boards as he did despite the fact the puck was nowhere near them at that point. Where was the ruling? None whatsoever. We're willing to suspend journeyman and Vancouver Canuck Aaron Rome for this sort of thing, but not the Bruins.

The league is very poorly enforced at times, we all know this.
Posted Image

#159 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,169 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:11 PM

Any d man that stands up a forward at the blue line is the same d man that has been doing it since the blue line was placed upon the ice.

Blindside hits are from the blind 'side'-this is a body check conducted in the neutral zone, with a d man coming straight up the middle at you defending his blue line and is as common an occurance as any off side call.

I agree with Tortorella's Rant in that calling Rome's hit 'intent to injure',a 'blind side hit' and that Horton should 'not be expecting to be hit' as hypocritical and I would add irresponsible,as well.

Edited by nuck nit, 14 September 2012 - 06:34 PM.


#160 Psycho_Path

Psycho_Path

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,741 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 06

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:51 PM

While all of these have already been mentioned, here's my list.

Boulerice on Kesler


Right at the end of the vid you can see it, but Tootoo crosschecking Bourdon in the face


Moore on Naslund (Probably the most hated of the bunch


Marchand on Salo


Thomas on Henrik

Posted Image

#161 White Goodman

White Goodman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:47 PM

You still haven't answered one fairly significant question, Baggins - where were you situated in order to be so certain of how it played out? Because if you're relying on the few grainy pictures from behind and behind the play video clips, those angles haven't captured the entire picture.

This:

"Getzlaf actually did everything right on the hit. He coasted in, tucked his elbow and dropped his shoulder."

is the exact opposite of what actually happened but, again, relying on a few poorly placed cameras to assess things isn't really allowing for the entire picture for you. So let me help with that, as I was there and know how it really happened.

He was coasting in, after skating from the other end of the ice, so had a little momentum behind him. He lined Hammy up, who'd retrieved the puck behind the net and was, in fact, passing the puck away in the other direction. What else should he do? - pass it to Getzlaf? Leave it there and jump out of the way? No, he played the puck as he was well within his rights to do.

Getzlaf followed through, with a bit of a launched hit. Can't deny that and, if you do, I'll show you the shots with his skates off the ice during the hit. No need for that, afterall, we're just coasting here, remember? So he went for it.

Then he also follows through with his elbow up....this picture demonstrates that - blurry, but the white blur that you see is his arm/elbow up. Shoulder isn't tucked in, as you suggest.
Posted Image
(hmmm, my copy is bigger...but you see where the number 15 and name ends?....above that and Dan's helmet is Getz's arm extended, elbow up....the blurred white to the right of Dan's helmet is part of his arm. What do you think it is?...a flying dove? No - it's the arm in Dan's face that wasn't visible in any of the camera angles and was, therefore, missed by most. And FTR, the ref was watching the puck and recipients, not Dan. But, from the angles YOU saw, it looked tucked in....because there was no camera placed in front to capture it. This happened directly in front of me and there's no denying what I/we saw)


And this one?
Posted Image

Unless you try to tell me that during this picture (taken before Dan hits the ice and directly after the hit), Ryan was actually trying to fly away? Doing the funky chicken? I'm pretty sure he was involving his elbow. Remember, it's a split second thing and Dan hit the ice, out cold. So it's not like he floundered, face on glass and this is an after shot. This is directly after impact, before Dan even went down.

The elbow's there. It was an over enthusiastic, launched hit into the boards, face first. Not cool, no matter how you try to justify it. And, by no means, the innocent play that you're trying to sell.



So before you argue this any further - where were you seated? Or are you simply relying on a few stills from a bad camera angle behind the play?

Because you can't definitively argue your point like it's absolute without considering that another angle may have shown something missed here. And that was the case...it looked innocent enough from behind but was clearly a hit with a bit too much emphasis considering the guy had just passed the puck away and was on the boards. Unnecessary to have put the extra "ommmf" in there for sure.

And you called his images grainy.
Posted Image

#162 Sugar baby watermelon

Sugar baby watermelon

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,132 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 11

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:54 AM

Those tweeners screaming at/hitting on Chris Tanev are really annoying..... sorry maybe I just don't get the question...

#163 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,959 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:53 AM

And you called his images grainy.


My point being that I didn't have to rely on the "grainy images", as I was right in front of the play. He, on the other hand, did and that's why it was relevant.

Posted Image


#164 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,372 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:50 AM

My point being that I didn't have to rely on the "grainy images", as I was right in front of the play. He, on the other hand, did and that's why it was relevant.


Do refs get all their calls correct even though they are right there Deb? Sometimes what a person believes they saw in the blink of an eye is not what actually happened. That's been proven over and over on goal reviews. Just as this video evidence refutes your claim of an elbow to the head.

- It's physically impossible to elbow somebody in the head when said elbow is trapped between their bodies.
- The only possible way for that trapped elbow to connect is come up from Dan's lower back and over his shoulder. Which it clearly didn't.
- You saw his elbow come up immediately after the hit and made a mental assumption that became your truth.
- The entire contact took place in less than 1/10 of a second. So I'll believe what I saw in slow motion from various angles over what anybody saw live in a blink of an eye from one angle.
- You have failed to produce any evidence to support what you thought you saw while all the evidence refutes your claim.
- Can you even explain how a players elbow between two bodies gets from the persons lower back to their head without ever being visible?
Posted Image

#165 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,169 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:13 AM

I will go with eyewitness testimony over a blogger eating pretzels in his living room.

#166 hockeywoot

hockeywoot

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 09

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:14 AM

Memory doesn't go too far back
Anyone of these

-McSorley on Brash***(This is prolly the most severe)
-Moore on Naslund

-Eager on Daniel
-Boulderice on Kesler
-Pronger stomping Kesler
-Boychuk on Raymond

-Marchand using Daniel as punching bag
-Keith on Daniel
-Marchand on Salo ("violent Salo" LMFAO)
.........................................................................these last three, as everyone seems to defend these guys due to their blind hate for the Canucks

#167 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,869 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 20 September 2012 - 07:27 PM

Keith Magnuson on Chris Oddleifson.

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#168 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,422 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 20 September 2012 - 08:38 PM

I can't tell if you're joking or not, so I'll instead just remind you that the point of that video was to show you that the two hits were IDENTICAL, and if Marchand's a rat for doing it to Salo, what does that make Raymond for doing it to Marchand?

Watch the video, it's the same damn thing.


Posted Image

take it with a grain of salt KoES - but trying to be 'fair-minded' re: Marchand, around here, is to invite...

Edited by oldnews, 21 September 2012 - 12:02 PM.


#169 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,372 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:12 PM

I will go with eyewitness testimony over a blogger eating pretzels in his living room.


You will go with whatever favors the Canucks and ignore any facts to the contrary. What's that called again?

Any evidence that I'm a blogger? Or that I eat pretzels for that matter. Just further evidence you don't deal in facts and prefer make believe
Posted Image

#170 Westcoasting

Westcoasting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 10

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:36 AM

While all of these have already been mentioned, here's my list.
Thomas on Henrik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CS0W7stNag


I loved that hit on Henrik, that is classic hockey right there!! Canucks need to play more like that. Of course at that point i didn't think they were going to implode and lose the series.

#171 LFPM

LFPM

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,606 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 06

Posted 23 September 2012 - 01:01 AM

Messier on Linden or Keith on Sedin. watching the keith hit disgusts me he does not turn to look at the puck at any point his sole purpose is hitting daniel.
lee goren..greatest ever?

#172 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 23 September 2012 - 06:17 PM

I loved that hit on Henrik, that is classic hockey right there!! Canucks need to play more like that. Of course at that point i didn't think they were going to implode and lose the series.


My problems with the hit:

-We had a player in a vulnerable position (Henrik reached up for the puck, and had his head down when he put it back on his stick)

-The player was not expecting a hit (Most players don't expect a goalie to body check them)

-The hit was malicious (It was completely unnecessary, Tim Thomas only did it out of a desire to hurt another player. How many goalies do that?)

-It was cowardly (Tim Thomas only did it because he's a goalie. He knows that he can get away with it without fear of retaliation or reprimand because he's in the net due to the special protection afforded to goalies.)




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.